Title of source article:
Strife Abroad, Responses at Home: Muslims in the West and Conflict Spillover
Reference page:
link › mail.google.com/mail/u/0
Definition of “reactive conflict spillovers” and “source conflicts” from migrationpolicy.org:
“The term “reactive conflict spillover” developed by the author refers to violence generated within diaspora communities (in other words, those of immigrants and their native-born descendants) in response to politicized events and conflicts abroad. Spillovers can consist of terrorist attacks, the imposition of bodily harm, violent protests, riots, or sustained campaigns to destroy property.
Source conflicts can be national or international in scope (see Figure 1), but must attract international attention and generate political activism in diaspora communities. The immediate triggers that often precipitate reactions abroad, whether peaceful or violent, are significant, galvanizing, and frequently symbolic events that may involve intense fighting, provocative statements, or rumored atrocities.”
From simply reading the title of the article, I knew these words were going to remove agency from those acting with violence.
Interestingly, who is thought to have agency and is therefore punishable and who is determined to have none is decided amid a barrage of liberal rhetoric which blames the wrong party. I grew up poor, but note that I was held accountable for my work at home and in school. Growing up poor did not lead to one being a violent psychopath until the last century. In fact, historically, the aristocracy was more likely to initiate violence as a way of controlling the poor.
Figure 1., “Conflicts, Triggers, and Reactions in Diaspora Communities,” suggests four sources of triggers and two possible reactions (neither of which are examining why your people may be considered in such a light, but I dream and digress…with everyone having victim status, there’s no need for such reflections).
“Trigger events can be either violent (for example, the beginning of the Second Intifada in Palestinian territories in 2000) or nonviolent (as occurred in 2005 with the publication of caricatures of Prophet Muhammad in Denmark).”
Did they mention that “Vincent Van Gogh’s Great-Grand Nephew Murdered by Suspected Islamic Radicals,” in 2004?
Well, here it is:
“Nine suspected Islamic Radicals, all of North African descent, have been arrested for the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, the great grandnephew of renown artist Vincent Van Gogh.
Van Gogh recently made “Submission,” a film critical of Muslim immigrants to Holland who do not adopt Dutch customs. The film follows Somali-born Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who denounces Islam, and shows Quaranic verses painted on a naked woman’s body.
A note pinned to Van Gogh’s body that made death threats against Ali, the US, Europe, and Holland, and boasts Islam will "be victorious through the blood of martyrs." Possible ties to terrorist groups are being investigated.”
I can find no results of this investigation by googling, but I did find this link:
Below are links reporting the details of his murder:
To return to a discussion of the original article:
Use of the word triggers implies that the gun is not responsible for releasing the bullet. The trigger is. Notice the excusing nature of the word trigger. Given the liberal nature of the article, I was very surprised that the author mentions careful screening of immigrants for radical Islamic ties to ensure domestic security.
If you really want to lose your breakfast, read the summary section titled, “Lessons for Today’s World,” where you will read a sentence about the “exaggerated fear of refugees” in the US. The article is only dated May 10, 2017, by which time nothing happened at all to ignite these fears, a miracle of someone's analysis of the problem, if you ask me, given the paucus (meaning few, or little, from Latin) coverage of such events in the American news, requiring inquiring minds to flee to YouTube for such information.
The Mind of Mescaline Franklin
The Awakening of a Paleface Ethnocist
